DILIP KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICING divergent views expressed by two learned Single Judges of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1996 (1) PLJR 863 and Md. Akhtar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1995 (2) East Cr. C. 345, one of us (Loknath Prasad, J.) by his order dated 1.5.97 referred the matter to the Division Bench to resolve the aforesaid conflicting views.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is that the vehicle of the petitioner was seized by the Forester in connection with a forest offence. It was found that the vehicle had a secret chamber meant for concealing some articles and in that very chamber two kgs. of Kattha, which is admittedly a forest produce, was being carried in the said vehicle. A case under the Indian Forest Act was instituted and prosecution report was submitted against driver and the owner of the concerned vehicle. A Confiscation Case No. 24/94 was initiated by the Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribagh and being noticed the petitioner, claiming himself to be the owner of the vehicle, entered appearance and filed his show cause. However, after hearing the parties the vehicle was ordered to be confiscated to the State Government for violation of the provisions of the Indian Forest Act. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order of confiscation but without any success. Impugning the orders of D.F.O. as well as the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner has moved this Court in this writ application. Before the learned Single Judge the only submission was advanced on behalf of the petitioner that for only 2 kgs of Kattha, which was valued of Rs. 150/ or so, the forfeiture of the vehicle, which is valued more than a lakh, is illegal and even for such a petty offence it is neither desirable nor will be in the interest of the parties as it will cause considerable hardship and loss to the petitioner. In support of this contention, reliance was placed in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta's case (supra), where it has been held that if a vehicle is seized for an offence regarding carrying of meagre value of forest produce then it is not fair to seize and confiscate the same and for the ends of justice, only fine may be imposed and the vehicle may be released to the owner. However, on behalf of the State, it was submitted that in deciding Anil Kumar Gupta's case (supra) the learned Single Judge had not taken into consideration the decisions of other Single Bench in the case of Md. Akhtar and Ors. (supra) and the decision in the case of Baldeo Yadav v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1996 (1) East Cr. C. 369, where, inter alia, it was held that the criminal Court has no jurisdiction to release the vehicle. As aforesaid, because of the divergent view expressed by two learned Single Judges in two different judgments, this matter has been placed before us.

(3.) FROM the aforesaid discussions, it is clear that apparently the point, which was involved in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta (supra), was not the subject matter of consideration either in the case of Md. Akhtar or in the case of Baldeo Yadav. In such view of the matter, we are required to deal with the decisions of other High Courts on which the learned Single Judge in Anil Kumar Gupta's case has placed reliance.